Internal and External Factors Influencing the Implementation and

Diffusion of the Open Innovation Models:

The Case of the Postal Sector
Andrea Stucki
EPFL, Chair Management of Network Industries MIR
Swiss Post, Viktoriastrasse 21, 3030 Bern
andrea.stucki@epfl.ch
Paper presented at the 3rd Global Postal Research and Education Network Conference,
Lausanne, 2009
Keywords: Innovation Management, Open Innovation, Influencing Factors, Postal Sector
Abstract
Much evidence identifies innovation as the main driver for companies to prosper, grow, and
sustain a high profitability. New innovation models of so called Open Innovation make
companies rethink their innovation management, as it is assumed, that the implementation of
such models result in better innovation performance. The relatively young field of research is
expanding in many directions and the ongoing debates cover a multitude of areas connected
through the overall aim of understanding how both high- and low-technology companies can
become more innovative. Since the implementation of open innovation models depends
among other factors on the industry sector, the model has to be adapted for each company.
This paper reveals an overview on existing models on external as well as internal factors
influencing companies innovation management and combines them to a new model on open
innovation and its influencing factors. To point out the practical relevance of these
influencing factors, we apply the open innovation model and its influencing factors on the
case

of

the

postal

sector.

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Theoretical Foundations ......................................................................................................... 2
2.1.ImplementationofNewBusinessorInnovationModelsinCompanies ....................... 2
2.2.OpenInnovationModels.................................................................................................................... 3
3. Models on Influencing Factors............................................................................................... 5
3.1.HolisticInnovationManagement................................................................................................... 5
3.2.ServiceInnovationModel.................................................................................................................. 7
3.3.FactorsInfluencingtheImplementationofOpenInnovationModels ........................... 8
3.4.PreliminaryConclusion...................................................................................................................... 9
4. Factors Influencing the Implementation of Open Innovation Models in the Postal Sector . 10
4.1.ThePostalSector.................................................................................................................................10
4.2.IndustryRelatedExternalFactors ..............................................................................................10
4.3.FirmSpecificExternalFactors......................................................................................................12
4.4.InternalFactors ...................................................................................................................................15
5. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 17
6. Limitations and Implication for Future Research ................................................................ 18
References ................................................................................................................................ 19

1. Introduction
Until recently, innovation management in most companies has mainly focused on internal
innovation processes. But new models of so called Open Innovation make companies
rethink their innovation management: ideas are no longer exploited just from inside the
company but also from outside of the firms boundaries, as it is assumed, that such purposive
in- and outflows of knowledge and resources will result in better innovation performance (De
Jong et al. 2006, p. 15-16). Many companies in different industries are currently transforming
their innovation strategies from closed innovation management to open innovation models.
Therefore, their innovation management changes from centralized R&D to open innovation
models. This change is also noticeable in service industries, where intensified competition
and increased technological dependency lead to the necessity for such companies to become
and stay innovative. An example of a service industry undergoing enormous changes over the
past decades is the postal sector, which has been going through a profound process of reform
(liberalization). The major motivation for such liberalization was and still is the belief that
competition stimulates, among others, process and product innovation, both of which are
important vehicles for economic and productivity growth. The ability of any operator to create
and sustain competitive advantages over the long term will depend largely on how well the
operator deals with changes in its environment and manages to exhibit innovative behavior. In
a changing environment, innovation is a key to adapting to change, overcoming
organizational weaknesses, and adding value to the organizations products and services
(Sund 2008, p. 6).
In their overview of the existing literature on open innovation models, Fredberg, Elmquist and
Ollila (2008) reveals open innovation as a very young field in which the most energy has been
put into a fascination for the subject as such. Researchers have mainly explored open
innovation models with a strictly firm-oriented perspective and referred to a very limited
number of cases (such as IBM, P&G, Air Chemicals and Innocentive). But the research field
is expanding in many directions and the ongoing debates cover a multitude of areas connected
through the overall aim of understanding how both high- and low-technology companies can
become more innovative. A recent study by Laursen and Salter (2006) indicates that the open
innovation model should not lead to the interpretation that all companies act according to herd
behavior and practice identical or very similar modes of governing innovation. Huge
variations exist across as well as within industries and companies (Christensen 2006, p. 48).
In this paper, we discus open innovation models from both an industrial- and a firm-oriented

perspective and analyze external and internal factors that are influencing the implementation
and diffusion of open innovation models.
2. Theoretical Foundations
2.1. Implementation of New Business or Innovation Models in Companies
Based on reform processes and intensified competition, companies search for emergent
innovation models to gain competitive advantage and to increase their performance. The
implementation of such new models requires decisions on strategy and execution from the
companys management (e.g. Porter 1996). Strategy is about performing different activities
from those of rival companies or performing similar activities in different ways. Strategy
always involves risk, because theres uncertainty about consumer behavior, competition, and
technological change (Rosenzweig 2007, p. 156). Another source of risk comes not from all
the outside the company, but from uncertainties surrounding internal capabilities. In contrast
to strategy, the execution takes place entirely within the company and it is all about carrying
out the choices. It refers to the way that people, working together in an organizational setting,
mobilize resources so support the strategy. Despite the companies best efforts, the ways that
people and processes work together in complex organizations are very hard to untangle and
even harder to transplant elsewhere with the same results (Rosenzweig 2007, p. 152). The
study of Bloom and Dorgan et al. (2002) points out that the same practices used in one
company may lead to somewhat different results in another company. This means that
execution, like strategy, doesnt lend itself to predictable cause-and-effect relationships. It is
necessary for each companys management to define the most important elements of
execution by answering the following key question: For our company, at this time, competing
against our rivals, which of the many dimensions of execution are most important
(Rosenzweig 2007, p. 154)? Therefore, the challenges for companies that are implementing
new practices like open innovation models are two-fold. First, they have to analyze the factors
that are influencing their decisions in general and their innovation management in particular
(strategy). Second, an individual adaption of the models according to these influencing factors
is essential for every company (execution).

2.2. Open Innovation Models

A possibility to adapt companies innovation management to changed environmental
conditions is the implementation and diffusion of open innovation models. In the past decades
we have witnessed a change process in how enterprises develop and commercialize
innovations. The view behind the old closed innovation models is that successful
innovation requires control (e.g. Schumpeter 1935). It supposes that enterprises must generate
their own ideas and then develop them, build them, market them, distribute them, service
them, finance them, and support them on their own. These closed models counsel enterprises
to be strongly self-reliant, because one cannot be sure of quality, availability, and capability
of others ideas. Open innovation models, though, assume that enterprises can and should use
both external and internal ideas and paths to the market, when enterprises look to discover and
realize innovative opportunities and to generate value. Internal ideas can also be taken to
markets through external channels, outside the current businesses of the enterprise, to
generate additional value (Chesbrough 2003, p. 24). The basic idea of these open innovation
models is illustrated in figure 1:
Figure 1: The open innovation model

(Chesbrough 2003, p. 24)

In open innovation models, ideas can still originate inside the enterprise, but some of those
ideas may seep out, either in the early and later stages of the innovation process (inside-out).
Ideas can also start outside the enterprise and move inside later (outside-in). As the figure
shows, there are a great many potential ideas outside the enterprise. Although the open model
still weeds out false positives (now from external as well as from internal sources), it offers a

broader range of alternatives to benefit from innovation, and it also enables to recover false
negatives by acquiring them later (Chesbrough 2003, p. 25). In their study on different
companies using open innovation models, Gassmann & Enkel (2006) identify three core
processes within open innovation models (p. 134):
Figure 2: Core Processes in Open Innovation Models

(Gassmann & Enkel 2006, p. 134)

Outside-in processes

The outside-in process combines the internal knowledge of a company with external
knowledge of customers, suppliers, or partners and through an active transfer of technologies
from other companies and universities. The opening of the innovation processes and the
integration of external knowledge sources through cooperation with suppliers and customers
can be a core competency of a company. Companies in low-technology industries, in
particular, are concentrating on the outside-in process in estimating spillovers from
technology-intensive industries (Gassmann & Enkel 2006, p. 134).

Inside-out processes

The inside-out process encourages the external commercialization. Through licensing, the
time-to-market gets shorter and technologies are better multiplied than possible in an internal
exploitation. The different inside-out processes can be described as an effective utilization of
the internal knowledge through the opening of the companys boundaries. Companies
focusing on the inside-out process are strongly engaged in research. These firms, mostly high-

technology companies, aim to reduce their fixed costs for research and development as well
as to share the risk of innovations with other companies (Gassmann & Enkel 2006, p. 135).

Coupled process

The coupled process links the integration and externalization of knowledge for conjoint
innovation processes in alliances, joint ventures, and innovation networks. There are two
main conditions to be considered for the implementation of cooperative innovation processes
in a company. First, companies must be able to adopt external knowledge and integrate it into
the own knowledge and technology base. Secondly, they have to externalize internal
knowledge to let the partners profit. The success depends on the selection of the right partner
for a fruitful cooperation (Gassmann & Enkel 2006, p. 136).
3. Models on Influencing Factors
There are different models either on factors that are influencing the innovation management
in general or on the implementation of open innovation models in particular. In this section,
we discuss three of them (paragraph 3.1.-3.3.) and combine them in an overall model on open
innovation and its influencing factors (paragraph 3.4.).
3.1. Holistic Innovation Management
The model on holistic innovation management combines the market-based-view with the
resource-based-view (e.g. Porter 1998) through integrating the environment of the company
as well as the internal capabilities and resources in an integrative approach. The model
focuses on the innovation process and on four areas of influence: customer, competitor,
employee, and system (Schaller, Rackensperger & Reichwald 2004, p. 58). The four areas of
influence are important for all steps in the innovation processes; they influence not only the
planning and the realization but may also trigger innovation projects (Reichwald & Schaller
2006, p. 177). The goals of this model are the customer acceptance; based on both qualified
capabilities of the employees and a carefully chosen innovation network; the conformity of a
companys system with its environment, and sufficient protection of the products and services
against imitation (Reichwald & Schaller 2006, p. 177).

Figure 3: Holistic Innovation Management

(Schaller, Rackensperger & Reichwald 2004, p. 58)

Reichwald & Schaller (2006) adopt the holistic innovation model to the specific
characteristics of service innovations (p. 175):
It is assumed that customer orientation and integration result in a sustainable competitive
advantage. Furthermore, customer orientation can reduce the market uncertainty, which
evolves from the intangibility of services. The major challenges are the forecast of future
customer needs and the transformation of these needs into marketable solutions. In this
context, the interaction or even integration of customers in innovation processes is reasonable.
In the service innovation management, competitors are an important area of influence to
consider. They are not only used as a benchmark but also for differentiation (Reichwald &
Schaller 2006, p. 175). New or changed services ask for new capabilities. Since clients are
often involved in the service production process, the perception of the service quality strongly
depends on the employees behavior. Thus, the employees are relevant in the focus of every
service and essential for quality oriented service innovation processes (Reichwald & Schaller
2006, p. 176). Another area of influence is the integration of the innovation management in
the culture and systems of a company. This is particularly important when the innovation
processes are opened up and external resources need to be integrated into the existing systems
(Schaller, Rackensperger & Reichwald 2004, p. 59).

3.2. Service Innovation Model

According to the service innovation model (Bransch 2005), the innovation management is
influenced from the outside by both environmental determinants and firm-specific factors.
Bransch identifies eight major external factors influencing the innovation management in
service companies (p. 44):

Industry-Related External Factors: Political / Legal, Cultural, Economical, Ecological,

and Technological Factors

Firm-Specific External Factors: Partners, Customers, and Competitors

Figure 4: Service Innovation Management

(Bransch 2005, p. 44)

But the challenge to implement open innovation models depends not only on external factors
but also on different internal determinants. Previous to the management of the innovation
processes, the top management defines the strategies and goals for the innovation
management. To achieve the given strategies and goals, there are several internal objectives
like the management of the innovation processes and the building of internal resources to be
considered (Bransch 2005, p. 44).

3.3. Factors Influencing the Implementation of Open Innovation Models

The study of Gassmann and Enkel (2005) identifies a model on factors that are influencing
the implementation and diffusion of open innovation models (p. 298):
Figure 5: Factors Influencing the Implementation and Diffusion of Open Innovation Models

(Gassmann & Enkel 2005, p. 298)

According to this model, innovation management differs in many aspects regarding external
factors like the economic sector, field of knowledge, type of innovation, historical period, and
country concerned (Pavitt 2005, p. 87). The economic sector or the products of a company
can be influenced by the complexity of the product and thus affect the integration of external
knowledge: the intensity of knowledge used for the product development determines the
necessity to integrate additional external knowledge. Since services are often highly complex;
product-, process-, social-, and system-innovations are often combined; the integration of
external knowledge is fundamental to enable the knowledge-intensive development.
Furthermore, a high degree in competition within an industry makes the integration of
knowledge of clients or partners into the development processes an essential condition for
competitive advantages. The implementation of open innovation models mainly implies a
systematization of innovation processes to facilitate strategic decisions on questions like what
should be developed inside, what should be integrated from the outside, and what should be
developed in cooperation. Since SMEs are more flexible in adopting their innovation
processes to the changed conditions than large companies, the companys size is another
external influencing factor (Gassmann & Enkel 2005, p. 298).
The implementation is additionally influenced by internal factors like the use of the core
processes and the capabilities within an organization (Gassmann & Enkel 2005, p. 300). The
use of the different processes of open innovation models varies with the firms corporate

strategy or strategies and its prior experience with innovation (Pavitt 2005, p. 87). The ability
of the enterprise to integrate external knowledge in an efficient and effective way and to build
up collaborative relations with partners for cooperative innovation development are other
internal factors influencing the implementation of open innovation models (Schaller,
Rackensperger & Reichwald 2004, p. 60).
3.4. Preliminary Conclusion
Combining all three models on influencing factors we identify the following model on factors
influencing the implementation of open innovation models:
Figure 6: Open Innovation Management and its Influencing Factors

4. Factors Influencing the Implementation of Open Innovation Models in the Postal

Sector
4.1. The Postal Sector
As remarked earlier in this article, the postal market is undergoing profound reform processes.
The changes, largely brought about by deregulation and globalization, include growing
competition, changing customer demands, and the more widespread use of new information
and communication technologies. Governments are expecting higher returns and increased
productivity, whilst often demanding universal services. Within this context, traditional postal
operators are stretched to the limit of their technological, organizational, and management
capabilities. In order to grow and build sustainable competitive advantages in such a context,
these organizations need to innovate (Sund 2008, p. 3). To ensure profitability and economic
growth in this new business environment, postal operators have to stay flexible and
innovative to be competitive in a liberalized market. Hence, the systematic facilitation of
innovation is a strategic factor for success and economic independence. As a consequence of
the reform processes and the increased competition, postal operators revise their innovation
strategies and processes and commit itself to the implementation of open innovation models.
In the next paragraphs, we apply the model on open innovation and its influencing factors to
the postal sector and analyze external and internal factors that are important for postal
operators. To discuss these factors not only from an industry-related but also from a firmspecific perspective, we analyze some internal factors for the case of Swiss Post.
4.2. Industry-Related External Factors
Figure 7: Industry-Related External Factors

(Bransch 2005, p. 44)

Over the past decades, the environmental uncertainty for public utilities like postal operators
is growing among other things through liberalization and deregulation processes. In the postal
sector, the competition, which is often seen as the major motivation for process and product
innovation, is currently very low in the mail segment; but there are signs that with the full
market opening in 2011-2013 this scenario will considerably change (Felisberto 2008, p. 18).
The literature often suggests that competition, as an economical factor influencing the
innovation management, fosters innovation as it pressures managers to look for superior

10

alternatives to their current methods. Research shows that the importance of innovation is in
general positively associated with environmental uncertainty (Drechsler & Natter 2008, p.
14). Chesbrough (2007) states that the advent of opening up the innovation process is mainly
caused by such an uncertain environment and increased economic pressure on firms (p. 21).
Drechsler and Natters study (2008) on antecedents and drivers of open innovation confirms
that companies which act in markets with increased competition are forced to use not just one
but several external sources in innovation in order to boost their innovation success (p. 22).
Industrial economics, in contrast, argue that the increased innovativeness of postal operators
is mainly caused by political factors: the perspective of full market opening allows
governments and owners to tighten their request for profitability. Claims for consistent
development of relevant technologies and for a new quality of services let postal operators
reengineer their business and develop new services (Jaag, Maegli, & Schaad 2007, p. 71).
Both perspectives have in common that they favor the use of external partners in innovation
processes in order to survive in the market.
Another important economical driver for an increasing innovativeness of postal operators are
diminishing profits in the core business (e.g. decreasing mail volume) through technological
factors like the substitution of traditional products through virtual solutions. This trend is
strongly affected by the emergence of new information and communication technologies. The
emergence of ubiquitous availability of information technology allowed for the convergence
of classic and electronic mail services, leading to the introduction of innovative products
(Jaag 2008, p. 151).
As a consequence of the political, economical, and technological transformation processes,
today many postal operators rethink their innovation management. Therefore, the industryrelated external factors determine when companies implement new innovation models.

11

4.3. Firm-Specific External Factors

Figure 8: Firm-Specific External Factors

(Bransch 2005, p. 44)

Most postal operators are large and diversified companies that are not as flexible as a small
firm in adopting new innovation models. Due to postal operators size, the implementation of
open innovation models mainly implies strategic decisions and a systematization of the
innovation processes (Gassmann & Enkel 2005, p. 298). Because they are companies with
highly complex services, the integration of external knowledge and collaborative innovation
processes with partners are essential. Suppliers, research institutions like universities,
competitors, and customers are relevant partners (De Jong et al 2008, p. 18):

Since the technological dependency of service companies is rapidly growing, collaborative

innovation processes with suppliers, in particular technology suppliers, are getting more and
more important for service companies. Systematic innovation processes ask for an intensive
interaction between suppliers and service companies, facilitated through strategic
relationships (Boutellier & Wagner 2001, p. 41). The aim of these collaborations is the joint
development of knowledge. According to the study of Sund (2008) on the innovativeness in
the postal sector, suppliers are recognized as important enablers of product and service
innovation (p. 17). Since suppliers know best the technological possibilities fitting to a
companys requirements, their involvement in innovation processes at an early stage and on a
high level makes obviously sense (Boutellier & Wagner 2001, p. 49). Only recently,
collaborations of postal operators with technology suppliers allow for a centralization of mail
processing and network optimization (Jaag 2008, p. 151).

Through intensified cooperation of service companies with research institutions like

universities, additional knowledge move from outside into the companies. If the transfer of
technology and knowledge is effective and efficient, the companies will profit from
marketable product and process technologies, which enhance the profit and reduce costs.
Studies on network collaborations confirm the increased success of product and process
innovations in companies cooperating with universities (Walter 2003, p. 2). The growing

12

interest of the economy in knowledge and technology transfers with research institutions is
enabled through new modes of transfer. Companies no longer act as passive knowledge
recipient but as knowledge partners for universities and actively involve their requirements
into the transfer processes (Zinkl & Binet 1997, p. 50). An example of collaborative
innovation processes between universities and postal operators is Swiss Posts PostLab.
Established as an incubator in 2008 at EPFL (Ecole Polytechnique Fdral de Lausanne), the
goals of PostLab are to build up strong connections between the scientific and the industrial
world and to integrate scientific knowledge into the innovation processes of Swiss Post.

To define the degree of an innovation, competitors are important benchmarks. The question
new for whom? is answered with new for the industry or new for us and the most
important competitors. In relevance to differentiation, competitors are also considered for the
processes of design, implementation, test, or introduction on the market (Reichwald &
Schaller 2006, p. 175). Although innovations with competitors may initially seem
counterproductive, strategic relationships with competitors are an additional possibility to
increase the innovativeness of a company. Ritter (2005) identifies two major advantages of
such cooperation (p. 629):

Market growth: The collaboration with competitors in a pre-competitive stage, i.e.

before a concrete service is defined, allows companies to develop new knowledge,
which would not be possible otherwise. In addition, such collaborations can open up
new markets. Thereby, both parties can profit from an enlarged market volume.

Increased or defended market share: Competitors in cooperative innovation processes

can suppress new competitors through their collective market power. This leads to
increased or defended market share.

The cooperation of service companies like postal operators with competitors is often
hampered by the intangibility of services and the missing protection against imitation
(Schaller, Rackensperger & Reichwald 2004, p. 54-55). Nevertheless, postal operators
nowadays exchange their knowledge on technologies and their applications to the different
core businesses. TNT and Swiss Post, for example, are engaged in a collaborative innovation
process on the development of ecological sustainable vehicles.

13

Some of the worlds historical postal operators recognized the customer as the most important
external enabler of innovation (Sund 2008, p. 17). Customer lifestyles and demands have
profoundly evolved, in a significant part due to the development of information and
communication technologies. Customers today prefer tailored services that take into account
their differentiated needs. Moreover, in the information society customers ask for ubiquitous,
interactive, and flexible services. Therefore, it is logical that many studies have found that
both innovation and market orientation have important effects on the long-term performance
and survival of firms (Sund 2008, p. 8). In an uncertain environment, new needs and wants of
customers can be created and new opportunities for profit explored. In an earlier study by the
Chair MIR of the EPFL (Abdallah, Felisberto & Finger 2006), it was found that evolving
customers demands is one of the most important drivers of change in the postal sector.
Hence, customer orientation is essential for companies in the postal sector and the integration
of customers into the innovation processes in terms of the outside-in processes reasonable.
The lead-user approach (e.g. von Hippel 2006) is a crucial example of customer integration
modes and is often seen as starting point for the opening of innovation processes (Reichwald
& Piller 2006, p. 130).
According to Fredberg, Elmquist and Ollila (2008), the problem of organizing the external
environment to make use of the wisdom of the outside is just one reason for the limited
number of firms using open innovation. Another issue is that even if the firm manages to do
that, a core problem is to organize internally to make use of the innovative ideas and
knowledge (p. 29). Consequently, the firm-specific external determinants as well as the
internal factors influence how the new innovation models are implemented. In the next
paragraph, some internal factors influencing the realization of open innovation models are
analyzed. To make the practical relevance more explicit, we apply them to the case of Swiss
Post.

14

4.4. Internal Factors

Figure 9: Internal Factors

(Bransch 2005, p. 44)

The challenges for the implementation of open innovation models involve strategic decisions
and goals as well as sustaining internal commitment over sufficient time to realize benefits
from adopting such models. In their survey on early adopters of open innovation models in
others than high-technology industries, Chesbrough and Kardon Crowther (2006) indentify
senior management support and funding at the outset of the initiative as important for the
implementation of open innovation models. Swiss Posts top management, for example,
identifies three strategic principles for innovation (Swiss Post 2008, p. 3):

Innovation is a strategic factor for success

Swiss Post has to stay flexible to compensate the disadvantages of a small postal operator
in liberalized markets and to ensure existence. Swiss Post understands the systematic
facilitation of innovations as a strategic factor for success and economic independence.

The innovation culture is essential for a sustainable success of Swiss Post

An innovation culture of openness and flexibility is a main factor for success. To establish
an innovation culture, intentional and long-term processes are essential. The aim of these
processes is to create simple innovation processes, the early involvement of customers and
other partners, fast developed and tested prototypes without the demand for perfection and
a consistent implementation of ideas. The willingness to make changes, to accept failures
and learn from them is part of the innovation culture of Swiss Post.

There are certain premises needed to increase the potential for innovations
Swiss Post commits itself to the use of open innovation models. Innovations occur with
partners (customers, universities, suppliers and other partners). The opening of the
innovation process and the selective linking of internal and external knowledge increase
the innovative strength of Swiss Post.

15

Open innovation champions to manage the process that incorporates the innovations in the
business along with revised internal processes, metrics, and incentives are important for the
implementation of the strategic goals through the open innovation management (Chesbrough
& Kardon Crowther 2006, p. 235). The open innovation management includes the
organization of the open innovation processes. Open innovation processes combine internal
and external ideas into architectures and systems and utilize business models to define the
requirements for these architectures and systems (Chesbrough 2006, p. 1). Due to the missing
technologies and the restricted IP rights for services, service companies like postal operators,
in contrast to high-technology industries, mainly focus their open innovation processes on the
integration of external technologies (outside-in processes) and on knowledge management
(coupled processes) (Stucki 2008, p. 40). There is a general observation and assumption that
though open innovation increases the potential creativity in the innovation process, it also
increases the complexity involved in managing the process. An open innovation process
demands that managers can handle both the inside and the outside of the organization
(Fredberg, Elmquist & Ollila, 2008). This corresponds with the results of Sunds survey
(2008), where the respondents identify the top-management as the most important stakeholder
in encouraging innovation within a postal operator. In fact, studies have shown clearly that
leadership and senior management support for innovative ideas and new product development
is crucial for the performance of the innovative process. Without this support there is little
chance of innovative projects making it (p. 17).
Top management is just one important aspect of the internal capabilities within a company.
The realization of new innovation models leads to different internal adaption processes. The
employees have to integrate and apply the new principles in the innovation processes
(Reichwald & Schaller 2006, p. 176). Hence, an innovative culture has to be implemented in
the company. Firms with an innovative culture create an atmosphere where entrepreneurship
and risk taking are encouraged and are rewarded and where individuals or teams are not
punished inadvertently when new products or services do not achieve expected results. A
climate of openness and informal communication is typical in the firms. Literature on new
product development provides ample research-based evidence that a strong innovation culture
has a positive impact on expected results (De Brentani & Kleinschmidt 2004, p. 312).
Because of shorter innovation cycles and dynamically changing customer needs, knowledge
management is essential for service companies (Kleinaltenkamp & Frauendorf 2006, p. 360).

16

Both external and internal knowledge need to be connected, managed, and implemented into
the culture and systems of a company. An open innovation culture and the facilitation of
knowledge communities (e.g. communities of practice) are therefore important conditions for
an efficient and effective knowledge management (Kleinaltemkamp & Frauendorf 2006, p.
370). There are three major tasks in knowledge management: knowledge acquisition (make or
buy), knowledge integration (integrate or relate) and knowledge exploitation (keep or sell)
(Fredberg, Elmquist & Ollila 2008, p. 16). Thus, knowledge management includes the
management of basic conditions supporting the accumulation of knowledge and all
information, communication, and learning processes that increase the innovativeness of
companies (Grizelj 2006, p. 84).
As a consequence of the reform processes and the increased competition, in 2008, Swiss Post
decided to implement and diffuse open innovation models and established an innovation
program to adapt the internal processes and capabilities to the open innovation. The
innovation program consists of the three major aspects architecture, culture, and
communication (Swiss Post 2008b). The architecture defines the structures, platforms, and
processes of Swiss Posts innovation management. An example of a recent development is the
creation of an innovation jury allowing rapid decisions on innovation projects, leading to an
increased number of both product and process innovation and shortened development
processes. Innovation platforms like the previous mentioned PostLab, Postidea (virtual
management of employees innovative ideas), and an intentional knowledge management
further increase the innovativeness of Swiss Post. Another goal of the innovation program is
the diffusion of open innovation into all process of the enterprise through strategic initiatives
like innovation workshops, active knowledge management, and intended communication.
5. Conclusion
In this paper we address the emergence of open innovation models and their implementation
in industries undergoing profound transformation processes. We assume that the
implementation of such models is influenced by external and internal factors differing from
both an industrial- and a firm-oriented perspective. Existing models on service innovations
and on the implementation of open innovation models reveal the challenges that companies
are facing in their decision processes concerning the implementation of open innovation
models. By analyzing the innovation management and the implementation of open innovation
models at the postal sector, we identify two major conclusions:

17

1. Industry-related external factors are constitutive for a companys innovation management.

They determine when companies rethink their innovation management.
2. Firm-specific external factors and internal factors determine how companies implement
open innovation models. The realization of open innovation models affects the
architectures, culture, and communication of a companys innovation management.
We argue that the implementation of open innovation models varies for each company
according to external and internal factors. Therefore, each company has to analyze their
specific industry-related and firm-specific external factors along with the internal factors and
adapt the open innovation models to these factors.
6. Limitations and Implication for Future Research
This present article has three major limitations. First, we are not yet able to provide a
framework of factors influencing the implementation of open innovation models varying for
different time periods, countries, industries, and companies. Second, we assume that there are
relations and correlations between the different factors that are not yet clearly identified and
analyzed. And third, it has to be defined what specific characteristics of the influencing
factors are necessary for the implementation of open innovation models.
In order to clarify how future research can contribute to the framework on factors that are
influencing the implementation and diffusion of open innovation models, we formulate the
following questions:

How does the influence of the different external factors vary over different time
periods, countries, industries, and companies?

How are both external and internal influencing factors related?

How can companies adapt open innovation models in reference to their industryrelated, firm-specific, and internal determinants?

What factors are necessary for the implementation of open innovation models?

The contribution of this type of research will be to complete the framework on influencing
factors and to give recommendations to companies in transformation processes on how they
could best adapt open innovation models to their specific situation.

18

References
ABDALLAH, F.; FELISBERTO, C & FINGER, M. (2006) Historical Operators & New
Technologies, Chair MIR-EPFL. Lausanne.
BLOOM, N., DORGAN, S., DOWDY, J., VAN REENEN, J. & RIPPIN, T. (2005)
Management Practices Across Firms and Nations. Centre for Economic Performance,
London School of Economics, June 2005.
BOUTELLIER, R. & WAGNER, S. (2001) Strategische Partnerschaften mit Lieferanten, In
Belz, C. & Mhlmeyer, J. (eds) Key Supplier Management. St. Gallen: Verlag Thexis.
BRANSCH, N. (2005) Service Engineering. Hintergrund, Methoden und Potenzial. Berlin:
VDM Verlag.
CHESBROUGH, H. (2007) Why Companies should have Open Business Models, MIT
Sloan Management Review, 48 (2): 21-28.
CHESBROUGH, H. (2006) Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial
Innovation, In Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (eds) Open Innovation.
Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
CHESBROUGH, H. (2003) Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting
from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
CHESBROUGH, H & KARDON CROWTHER, A. (2006) Beyond High Tech: Early
Adopters of Open Innovation in Other Industries, R&D Management, 36 (3): 229-236.
CHRISTENSEN, J.F. (2006) Whither Core Competency for the Large Corporation in an
Open Innovation World?, In Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (eds) Open
Innovation. Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
DE BRENTANI, U. & KLEINSCHMIDT E.J. (2004) Corporate Culture and Commitment:
Impact on Performance of International New Product Development Programs, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 21, 309-333.
DE JONG, J.P.J., VANHAVERBEKE, W., KALVET, T. & CHESBROUGH H. (2008)
Policies for Open Innovation: Theory, Framework and Cases. Research project funded by
VISION Era-Net, July 2008. Helsinki: Finland.
DRECHSLER, W. & NATTER, M. (2008) Open Innovation Management Trend with
Impact? An Empirical Investigation of Antecedents, Drivers and Performance Outcomes.
Retrieved 12, 2008, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1129809.
FELISBERTO, C. (2008) The effect of liberalisation on incumbents innovation in the postal
sector, Network Industries Quarterly, 10 (3): 18-20.
FREDBERG, T., ELMQUIST, M. & OLLILA, S. (2008) Managing Open Innovation
Present Findings and Future Directions. VINNOVA Report VR 2008 02.

19

GASSMANN, O. & ENKEL, E. (2006) Open Innovation. Die ffnung des

Innovationsprozesses erhht das Innovationspotential, zfo, 3/2006: 132-137.
GASSMANN, O. & ENKEL, E. (2005) Open Innovation Forschung. Forschungsfragen und
erste Erkenntnisse, In Weissenberger-Eibl, M. A. (eds): Gestaltung von
Innovationssystemen. Kassel: Cactus Group Verlag.
GRIZELJ, F. (2006) Kompetenzmanagement im Rahmen von Positionierungen?, In Bieger,
T. & Beritelli, P. (eds) Dienstleistungsmanagement in Netzwerken. Wettbewerbsvorteile
durch das Management des virtuellen Dienstleistungsunternehmens. Bern: Haupt.
JAAG, C (2008) Innovation in the Swiss Mail Sector: Deregulation versus Liberalization,
International Journal of Regulation and Governance, 7(2): 147-156.
JAAG, C., MAEGLI, M. & SCHAAD, C. (2007) Triebkrfte der Innovation im Postmarkt,
Innovation Management, Juni-August 2007, 2.
KLEINALTENKAMP, M. & FRAUENDORF, J. (2006) Wissensmanagement in Service
Engineering, In Bullinger, H.J. & Scheer, A.W. (eds) Service Engineering. Entwicklung
und Gestaltung innovativer Dienstleistungen. Berlin: Springer.
LAURSEN, K. & SALTER, A.J. (2006) Open for Innovation: The Role of Openness in
Explaining Innovation Performance among UK Manufacturing Firms, Strategic
Management Journal, 27 (2): 131-150.
PAVITT, K. (2005): Innovation Process, In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C. & Nelson, R.R.
(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PORTER, M.E. (1998) Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors. New York: The Free Press.
PORTER, M.E. (1996) What is Strategy?, Harvard Business Review, November-December
1996: 62-78.
REICHWALD, R. & PILLER, F (2006) Interaktive Wertschpfung. Open Innovation,
Individualisierung und neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
REICHWALD, R. & SCHALLER, C. (2006) Innovationmanagement von Dienstleistungen
Herausforderungen und Erfolgsfaktoren in der Praxis, In Bullinger, H.J. & Scheer, A.W.
(eds) Service Engineering. Entwicklung und Gestaltung innovativer Dienstleistungen. Berlin:
Springer.
RITTER, T. (2005) Innovationsnetzwerke, In Albers, S. & Gassmann, O. (eds) Handbuch
Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement. Strategie Umsetzung Controlling. Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
ROSENZWEIG, P. (2007) The HALO Effect. How Managers let Themselves be Deceived.
London: Simon & Schuster UK Ltd.

20

SCHALLER, C., RACKENSPERGER, D. & REICHWALD, R. (2004)

Innovationsmanagement von Dienstleistungen Ein ganzheitlicher Ansatz und seine
Umsetzung in die Praxis, In Bruhn, M. & Strauss, B. (eds) Dienstleistungsinnovationen.
Wiesbaden: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Gabler.
SCHUMPETER, J.A. (1935) Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung: Eine Untersuchung
ber Unternehmensgewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus. Mnchen:
Duncker & Humblot.
STUCKI, A. (2008) Open Innovation in Dienstleistungsunternehmungen. Ableitung der
Theorie des Open Innovation-Ansatzes auf den Dienstleistungssektor und Untersuchung der
Erkenntnisse am Praxisbeispiel der Schweizerischen Post. Unpublished Master Thesis.
Fribourg, University of Fribourg.
SUND, K. (2008) Innovation in the Postal Sector: Strategies, Barriers and Enablers.
Lausanne: EPFL. Conference Paper.
SWISS POST (2008a) Innovationspositionierung. Bern.
SWISS POST (2008b) Innovationsprogramm. Bern.
VON HIPPEL, E. (2006) Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
WALTER, A. (2003) Technologietransfer zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft.
Voraussetzung fr den Erfolg. Wiesbaden: Dt. Univ.-Verlag.
ZINKL, W. & BINET, O. (1997) Wissensverbund Wissens- und Technologietransfer:
Grundlagen fr eine Strategie von Hochschulen, Bern: Schweizerischer Wissenschaftsrat.

21